• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Four Modern “Scientific” Myths

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I looked them over and found deficiencies.

None worthy of mentioning apparently. I wonder why?

Wikipedia is ok for anything non-controversial. This is a controversial subject. Anybody can write or edit Wikipedia articles.

I've noted that myself, just above. Even for controversial subjects, or maybe especially, it is still very worthwhile for the overviews and especially the references.

The article in Forbes is by James Taylor who founded his own stupid three member foundation in March last year see its registration info and is a keynote speaker for coal industry events, such as the Reno Energy "Forum" see here which is sponsored by some coal lobby called the Coalition of Energy Users see here. The man is covered in soot and marketing gimmicks, but he's nobody to trust on a subject he calls 'Climate Gate'. He paints his 'Foundation' credentials all over as if its an accomplishment that qualifies him as a professor of facts. It doesn't, and Forbes -- hello? They really ought to rely upon journalists for journalism.

Out of the mouths of babes or the Devil himself, the Truth is still the Truth. Julian Assange is only one person, technically. The 5000 new emails are still another enormous pile of evidence, nay proof, of the malfeasance. It's the same situation with Hillary and her emails. She never denied any of them, just complained about the Russian whistle-blowers--and it wasn't even them.

Worst of all, this 'Article' is merely a reference to a Daily Mail comment, a comment on a site focused on entertainment news and info about aliens and lizard men.

So, you're claiming the evidence doesn't exist, all the while ignoring the original emails and the NOAA controversy? BTW, I posted those 4 examples together specifically to show more clearly that the scientific community is not about corruption. And so far all the complaints here have presented no evidence to counter the evidence--just name calling etc. That's especially true about global warming where none of the climate crisis advocates even try to show how the Sun affects the climate, often in parallel with Mars--or do we affect the Martian climate as well?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
It started with Einstein and his quote, and it's been flagging since to the point that it is no longer considered relevant for all but a few bitter clingers. It you're truly interested, the reference I posted is a fascinating read. She explains the ascendant interpretation, the Transactional Interpretation, better than its originator or than John Gribbin did in Schrodinger's Kittens, with one simple change summed up as: Quantum transactions don't occur forward and backward in time, the occur in a timeless environment which she calls, appropriately enough, "Quantumland".



.

What reference.

I imagine I can find the book from the "quantumland" allusion.

Though to my understanding, Copenhagen interpretation remains a commonly taught interpretation that has not been ousted. Though other interpretations exist and, in turn, have not been ousted either. Alas, I could be behind the curve on this one. So I welcome the read.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Most likely the Transactional Interpretation which explains all quantum weirdness. Re: Understanding Our Unseen Reality by Ruth Kastner. It explains TI better than the guy who came up with it.
There is the reference...it was hiding on the next page, which you obviously filled before the previous page as, on the previous page, you referenced the reference which was posted on this page. Only fitting for a discussion on qm.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
How is exposing their data manipulations misguided? Any unfounded accusation is always easy to make if the media has your back. In fact, like the Hillary campaign, none of the emails have been denied. As for number 3, tell me Jerusalem isn't a hot spot which could use a dose of reality, and maybe even a way out. Israel IS eventually going to build another Temple. Where would be better, the alleged Temple Mount, or the jumble that is what's left of the City of David. In any case, the real issue is the worldwide lack of scholastic integrity all four issues exemplifies.

In order:

1. I would have to wait until that happened before I could have any opinion.
2. As well as when it does not, as evidenced in this OP.
3. So?
4. I thought it was obvious, but since apparently not: people are not supposed to mind those things to any great degree.
5. I would say that you have illustrated something else instead. Namely, the dangers of confirmation bias.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Most likely the Transactional Interpretation which explains all quantum weirdness. Re: Understanding Our Unseen Reality by Ruth Kastner. It explains TI better than the guy who came up with it.
There is the reference...it was hiding on the next page, which you obviously filled before the previous page as, on the previous page, you referenced the reference which was posted on this page. Only fitting for a discussion on qm.

Yes, sorry about that.

The Wiki article on the CI puts up several annotated objections and this summation:
"Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[41] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[42] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists. In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.[43][44][45] In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."[46]
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
In order:

1. I would have to wait until that happened before I could have any opinion.

Until what happened?

2. As well as when it does not, as evidenced in this OP.
3. So?
4. I thought it was obvious, but since apparently not: people are not supposed to mind those things to any great degree.
5. I would say that you have illustrated something else instead. Namely, the dangers of confirmation bias.

Huh?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
1. Creationism, the position which even some scientists defend, which holds that the universe was created by God only 6000 years ago, and that a flood covered the whole Earth. It’s good to remember all the flood myths in the world, and that during the last glacial maximum or Ice Age which peaked around 17,000 years ago, sea level was 400’ lower than today. Civilizations, whatever form they took, would have been, as always, along those lower coastlines of warmer climes generally closer to the equator. The Persian Gulf would have been an actual, fertile, Garden of Eden, watered by the combined Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Those places would have been inundated by the melting of the glacial ice, sometimes catastrophically. Due to its expense and difficulty, marine archaeology is still in its infancy.
Re: Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, Graham Hancock (2002)


2. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics held that observation or the act of measurement affects a physical system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. This idea predominated the scientific community for much of the 20th century, and still has its adherents today. Einstein dismissed it, some would say ridiculed it, by asking, “Do you really believe I think the Moon only exists when I’m looking at it?”


3. The location of the first two Jewish temples was on the so-called Temple Mount in Jerusalem. For the faithful to believe this is one thing, but almost all archaeological (scientific) authorities who specialize in that area, are ideologically invested in disregarding all the biblical and extra-biblical evidence, such as the descriptions of the historian Josephus, that the first temples were just 600 feet to the south of the alleged Temple Mount, in the oldest part of Jerusalem, the City of David. The current alleged Temple Mount has to be the Fortress Antonia, which was left standing when the Romans captured Jerusalem in 70 CE to house the Roman 10th Legion for 200 years afterwards—while the City of David, with the Temple, was completely demolished at that time.
Re: The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, Marilyn Sams (2015)


4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).


All the following incidents indicate willful manipulation of data to support the idea of global warming.


The IPCC Climategate scandal in 2009 which released 1000 emails and other documents, which became known as Climategate:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia


Then in 2011 another 5000 IPCC emails were released, commonly referred to as Climategate 2:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


And again in 2017, whistleblower Dr. John Bates of NOAA, exposed similar manipulation at NOAA. This has also been termed Climategate 2, but it’s better to recognize it as Climategate 2.1:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science


I'd say creationism and anthropomorphic weather, are distinct in being long held beliefs, dating as far back as people started pondering anything.

Bad weather has always been blamed on bad people, and sacrifices to the weather gods have always been accepted from the gullible by those representing Gaia. replacing scary masks and dances with computer sims doesn't make the theory any more scientific

So I'd say creationism is a little more scientific at it's core than climate change, for several reasons-

Other than lacking the huge political conflict of interest, there have been very specific falsifiable predictions

And credit where it is due; the universe did turn out to have a specific creation event, we know the earth WAS once entirely covered with water, then one land mass and once ocean, that life DID appear in sudden distinct stages rather than slow gradual increments- but most of all, creationism often acknowledges it's own faith as such- creationists generally don't scream 'science denier!!' to anyone who questions it, they are more often willing and able to defend their own beliefs on their own merits.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Most likely the Transactional Interpretation which explains all quantum weirdness.
Wow, what's not weird about that "handshake" between retarded and advanced waves across spacetime?

Here are the criticisms listed in the Wikipedia article on TI:

1. “TI does not generate new predictions / is not testable / has not been tested.”

TI is an exact interpretation of QM and so its predictions must be the same as QM. Like the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), TI is a ‘pure’ interpretation in that it does not add anything ad hoc but provides a physical referent for a part of the formalism that has lacked one (the advanced states implicitly appearing in the Born rule). Thus the demand often placed on TI for new predictions or testability is a mistaken one that misconstrues the project of interpretation as one of theory modification.[10]

2. “It is not made clear where in spacetime a transaction occurs.”

One clear account is given in Cramer (1986), which pictures a transaction as a four-vector standing wave whose endpoints are the emission and absorption events.[11]

3. “Maudlin (1996, 2002) has demonstrated that TI is inconsistent.”

Maudlin's probability criticism confused the transactional interpretation with Heisenberg's knowledge interpretation. However, he raised a valid point concerning causally connected possible outcomes, which led Cramer to add hierarchy to the pseudo-time description of transaction formation, resolving the issue.[12][13][14][15][16]

4. "It is not clear how the transactional interpretation handles the quantum mechanics of more than one particle."

This issue is addressed in Cramer's 1986 paper, in which he gives many examples of the application of TIQM to multi-particle quantum systems. However, if the question is about the existence of multi-particle wave functions in normal 3D space, Cramer's 2015 book goes into some detail in justifying multi-particle wave functions in 3D space.[17]​

Transactional interpretation - Wikipedia

Can you show where the Copenhagen interpretation was shown to be false?
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
2016 was the hottest year on record, and you consider that a "myth", ridiculous.
2017 is looking good on beating it at this rate. Eastern Australia has been dealing with temperatures in the mid forties. The roads will start melting if it gets any worse.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Wow, what's not weird about that "handshake" between retarded and advanced waves across spacetime?

Here are the criticisms listed in the Wikipedia article on TI:

1. “TI does not generate new predictions / is not testable / has not been tested.”

TI is an exact interpretation of QM and so its predictions must be the same as QM. Like the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), TI is a ‘pure’ interpretation in that it does not add anything ad hoc but provides a physical referent for a part of the formalism that has lacked one (the advanced states implicitly appearing in the Born rule). Thus the demand often placed on TI for new predictions or testability is a mistaken one that misconstrues the project of interpretation as one of theory modification.[10]

2. “It is not made clear where in spacetime a transaction occurs.”

One clear account is given in Cramer (1986), which pictures a transaction as a four-vector standing wave whose endpoints are the emission and absorption events.[11]

3. “Maudlin (1996, 2002) has demonstrated that TI is inconsistent.”

Maudlin's probability criticism confused the transactional interpretation with Heisenberg's knowledge interpretation. However, he raised a valid point concerning causally connected possible outcomes, which led Cramer to add hierarchy to the pseudo-time description of transaction formation, resolving the issue.[12][13][14][15][16]

4. "It is not clear how the transactional interpretation handles the quantum mechanics of more than one particle."

This issue is addressed in Cramer's 1986 paper, in which he gives many examples of the application of TIQM to multi-particle quantum systems. However, if the question is about the existence of multi-particle wave functions in normal 3D space, Cramer's 2015 book goes into some detail in justifying multi-particle wave functions in 3D space.[17]​

Transactional interpretation - Wikipedia

Can you show where the Copenhagen interpretation was shown to be false?
Yes, I'll post it again, though I've never said it was proven to be false only out of favor:

The Wiki article on the CI puts up several annotated objections and this summation:
"Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[41] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[42] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists. In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.[43][44][45] In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."[46]

Though, once again I stress, science/objective Truth are not decided by consensus or committee.

And now this just in from 4 days ago:

And now, a UN climate change official admits the real reason behind the “global warming” issue:
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

She’ll probably have to walk that one back.
 
Last edited:

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I understood the OP to be saying that the Copenhagen Interpretation is one of the "four modern scientific myths".

Yes, it's being propped up by some scientists, like those supporting Creationism, which are still active in the modern era while virtually being out the door. I put the four examples together so as to see the similarities, and to enhance their similar weaknesses--an objective other than the Truth.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, it's being propped up by some scientists, like those supporting Creationism, which are still active in the modern era while virtually being out the door. I put the four examples together so as to see the similarities, and to enhance their similar weaknesses--an objective other than the Truth.
What do you claim is erroneous about the Copenhagen Interpretation?

How many physicists in your survey said that TI is the correct interpretation of QM?
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
What do you claim is erroneous about the Copenhagen Interpretation?

The same thing as Einstein, the Moon is still there even when we aren't looking at it. And the CI doesn't explain the double-slit experiment or the EPR Paradox.

How many physicists in your survey said that TI is the correct interpretation of QM?

It wasn't my survey. And the professionals are only now beginning to take TI seriously, since most of them preferred to believe the Moon isn't there when we aren't looking at it rather that accept the possibility of what appeared to be a manipulation of time--even though it isn't a manipulation but rather transactions taking place without the influence, or the absence of time.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I'd say creationism and anthropomorphic weather, are distinct in being long held beliefs, dating as far back as people started pondering anything.

Bad weather has always been blamed on bad people, and sacrifices to the weather gods have always been accepted from the gullible by those representing Gaia. replacing scary masks and dances with computer sims doesn't make the theory any more scientific

And "modern" "climatologists" are little better than their witch doctor ancestors, rattling bones to come give them time to plug in some explanation to keep the people in line and the money flowing.

So I'd say creationism is a little more scientific at it's core than climate change, for several reasons-

Other than lacking the huge political conflict of interest, there have been very specific falsifiable predictions

Global warming??? They reset the clock on the Second Coming back in the 70s and they keep missing their target. Not to mention other embarrassments like a rapidly expanding Antarctica and An Inconvenient Truth--which was so aptly titled.

And credit where it is due; the universe did turn out to have a specific creation event, we know the earth WAS once entirely covered with water, then one land mass and once ocean, that life DID appear in sudden distinct stages rather than slow gradual increments- but most of all, creationism often acknowledges it's own faith as such- creationists generally don't scream 'science denier!!' to anyone who questions it, they are more often willing and able to defend their own beliefs on their own merits.

The universe had a start, yes, but we have no whit of evidence as to what caused it. the Bible is not evidence because hearsay is not evidence--particularly ancient hearsay. And the rest of that is cherry picking, claiming a world wide flood when the atmosphere was lethal and no life existed to bring to a non-existent man (and this is the worst part) 6000 years ago. Creationists can't use anything to defend their beliefs other than blind faith in sourceless hearsay.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
And "modern" "climatologists" are little better than their witch doctor ancestors, rattling bones to come give them time to plug in some explanation to keep the people in line and the money flowing.



Global warming??? They reset the clock on the Second Coming back in the 70s and they keep missing their target. Not to mention other embarrassments like a rapidly expanding Antarctica and An Inconvenient Truth--which was so aptly titled.



The universe had a start, yes, but we have no whit of evidence as to what caused it. the Bible is not evidence because hearsay is not evidence--particularly ancient hearsay. And the rest of that is cherry picking, claiming a world wide flood when the atmosphere was lethal and no life existed to bring to a non-existent man (and this is the worst part) 6000 years ago. Creationists can't use anything to defend their beliefs other than blind faith in sourceless hearsay.

we agree entirely on global warming then- but what fun is that? :)

Ultimately I'd hope they are right, warmer climate periods are far preferable to cooler ones, and their agenda will persist no matter what happens anyway, climate change is ready to get behind global cooling again at the drop of a hat if and when needed

The creation event as described in Genesis was a pretty fundamental 'prediction' of the Bible, certainly atheists at the time thought so, when they mocked the Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang' for what they complained of as overt theistic implications..

But blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself. I acknowledge my faith, do you?

I consider myself a creationist, but not a young Earth one. I respect their beliefs also though, it's God's creation, if he wanted it to be 6000 years old then that's what it is. He is not bound by the rules of his own creation
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
we agree entirely on global warming then- but what fun is that? :)

Ultimately I'd hope they are right, warmer climate periods are far preferable to cooler ones, and their agenda will persist no matter what happens anyway, climate change is ready to get behind global cooling again at the drop of a hat if and when needed

Yes, never let a crisis go to waste, and Truth is irrelevant to our agenda.

But blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself. I acknowledge my faith, do you?

Blind faith is an emotional position which eschews reason and fact if they are contrary to their position, or merely say, "Is not!'

I consider myself a creationist, but not a young Earth one. I respect their beliefs also though, it's God's creation, if he wanted it to be 6000 years old then that's what it is. He is not bound by the rules of his own creation

A universe that would look 6000 years old but was actually billions, would be a lie. If nothing else, my definition of God is Truth. And if you're saying that God caused the Big Bang, fine, as long as you accept that there is no evidence for or against the idea. I accept that absolute lack of knowledge, and can see why God would do such a thing (spawning creatures with free will). For us, the only difference between deism and atheism is hope.
 
Top